Of Interest

Professor McPartland’s duties, as a philosophy, a teacher, and a mentor to students, have been jeopardized by the Hollander Hall backlash:

The man is deeply dedicated to the principle of free speech and equality. Opportunists on both sides of the political aisle will now attempt to connect his principles and actions either to a racist agenda or as a sacrifice done in support of the persecuted right. These are distortions of his real beliefs. Nevertheless, they will out into the campus and beyond, allowing others to hijack his beliefs.

Minority students who wish to work with him will hesitate to ever approach McPartland, now. He’ll be known as the ‘racist’ professor, and such a label is as damning as it is indelible. Yes, he is tenured, but this won’t prevent the jury of popular opinion from denigrating his reputation. If people won’t approach him, how can he properly teach?

The worst part of all this? This could happen to any other professor who happens to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong professional capacity. As a student who cares for that unique bond between professors and students formed by an education in Williams, I worry for the future where all are subject to the pillory.

The response to the model wall erected on Paresky lawn has proven quite interesting. A freshman, motivated by concerns that the demonstration overstepped its critique of the Israel state from reasonable observations to outright antisemitism, has penned his own rebuttal. Most importantly the student has allowed others to sign the letter in a show of solidarity.

The current signers cover a surprising amount of diversity. Some are Jews; some are Asians; some are Catholic; some are atheists; some are conservatives; others are progressive. About the only thing common among the signers is their status as either freshman or sophomores, but there are professors and seniors signers as well.

I know many of the signers, and I know that they aren’t apologists for everything Israel does. It’s a genuine display of solidarity against what they perceive to be antisemitism. While I’m not signing it, the significant presence of people willing to open themselves to possible backlash supporting a controversial position is a comforting thing, to me. It shows that there is still some intellectual diversity left in this campus.

Access the letter here, and please spread it. Whether you agree or disagree with its position, the community of Williams College ought to know that this wall has two different sides.

Why claim Williams as your home, when it is clearly a resource you get the privilege (yes, privilege) to pay at least 10K a year for? Indeed, my first instinct is to think, “what can I do, as a humble servant to Williams, to better Williams?”

Instead, an entire day that could be spent on classes gets skipped to pander to a particularly phonetic party of privileged pretend rebels. Yes, keep telling me how Williams needs to do more to help the political agenda of minorities when we have more left-leaning student organizations than I can count, Williamstown is a de facto Sanctuary City, and I can walk to Rice House or the Jewish Religious Center in about five minutes.

Meanwhile, I, with my crazy views that Trump’s policies aren’t that bad, or that maybe we shouldn’t outright applaud someone who broke U.S. law and falsified legal documents, or that the students should be grateful they even got into this place before whining about all its foibles, get to sit quietly, and watch this exemplary campus slip further into leftist diploma mill.

The presence of the virgin Conservative Society is just the adumbration of this trend. The political atmophere in first year in this campus wouldn’t have even humored this organization.

Ultimately, I see what’s going to happen here as a microcosm of the Overton Window shifting across the nation. We won’t be seeing any varient of paleoconservatism on the rise here, because Trump’s ideology is one of mild reform, and that’s what makes him appealing to his supporters, but it’ll still be quite a sight to hear some now verboten topic echo throughout the halls and classrooms, as was the case not so long ago.

Williams College is currently a need-blind in its admission process for national students (not so for international students). That by itself is a good thing, but isn’t that still leaving space for the admissions office to discriminate against potential students through other factors–say, if they’re white or black, a legacy student, or from a nice family in North Adams?

I propose that Williams expand its blind admission policy to all factors that don’t immediately relate to an applicant’s academics and (certain) extracurriculars. The school wouldn’t know if the 1580 SAT score and 4.0 GPA comes from a white, upper class student from Los Angeles or a working class black student from Chicago. Whether you share a last name with a big donor of the campus goes unnoticed by the admissions office. You won an interscholastic competition? Great, that gets considered. But they won’t know or care if you’re president of the Asian students club of your high school.

Regarding international students, the policy will affect them in the same manner. All that will be known are their academics and their status as an international applicant.

This new policy has the potential to boost the already respectable academic achievement of the campus. High school GPA correlates with college GPA, and the SAT predicts for future academic success. It follows that a selecting for students who perform and score the best in high school will likely select for the students who will get the most out of college.

I chanced upon this complaint just the other day. Curious (and partially offended, as affection for one’s alma mater affects even me), I asked for some elaboration. The friend of mine, who attends another respected liberal arts college and didn’t know I attend Williams, responded:

“They’re arrogant. Whenever their team shows up to multi-school events, they think they can coast by on brand-name and being kinda smart. They’re so exclusive, too!”

or something like that.

I told them I was one of those students. The blush on their face was something to behold! I needn’t fear, they said, I’m not like the average student they had met.

Fair enough. But it got me thinking–do I really disagree with them? They’re not stupid, and the stereotype of the Williams jock had to emerge from somewhere. Personally, I do smell a scent of smugness in the purple bubble. I don’t think it’s a conscious thing. I get along well with the Williams marathoner, the mathematician, the musician, or any commingling of the personalities present. It’s more just a certain narrow-mindedness. We appreciate how Williams College shapes the world, but we simultaneously neglect how much the world shapes Williams College.

I don’t think this mindset is as pronounced in other liberal arts campuses. That thought is subject to change, however.

Suppose you’re a middle-class student. Williams College accepts you, as do other prestigious institutes–and modest, but inexpensive ones. Your primary interest is establishing a base to build a stable, profitable career. Given these conditions, is going to Williams College or any other distinguished college the evidently preferable route?

I think not. An article by the prudent Marty Nemko I came across before my attendance of Williams presents a solid argument for attending the humble community college.

I ultimately chose Williams because of my financial circumstances and intetest in academia. Those students looking for a career, however, may desire to choose another path.

I expected more of a celebration than this. A group of this sort could thrive from proactive advertising. A few posters in Paresky Center would have sufficed to put the first meeting of this promising group on the radar. Perhaps it’s just a rookie error.

Or perhaps there is intent in the subdued announcement. Considering right-wing views are to Williams College what mongooses are to snakes, the prudent path might be to first feel out for potential backlash. In any case, the organization garnered a modest group with its first meeting–now focus on growing that base.